Dami Kim ’20… Teaching Darwinian Evolution: Preserving Enlightenment Thought

Teaching Darwinian Evolution: Preserving Enlightenment Thought

Dami Kim ’20

Living in a Darwinian world, students learn evolutionary science in school starting with Darwin’s journey to the Galapagos on the Beagle. Their curricula introduce the concepts of survival of the fittest and natural selection as a “nurturing” force, typically introducing the example of finches with different beak shapes. As students absorb the information like they do arithmetic rules, they accept evolutionary theory as knowledge. This is an epistemologically dishonest method of education. For a proposition (i.e. Darwin’s evolutionary theory) to be considered knowledge, it must satisfy three requirements: 1) proposition is true; 2) subject believes proposition is true; 3) subject is justified in believing that proposition is true (Steup). Darwinian evolution fulfills only the second criterion. While evolutionary theory draws attention to logical flaws in other explanations of the universe’s origin, they conversely identify flaws in Darwin’s. Thus, when schools do not discuss the gaps that may undermine evolutionary theory, they lock away progress and modern thought through passivity. Although Darwinian evolution is widely accepted in contemporary science, educational institutions should guide students to critically evaluate the validity of Darwin’s and other theories of creation in light of their logical flaws, preserving epistemological honesty in Kantian enlightenment fashion.

Darwinian evolutionary theory undercuts the validity of intelligent design, providing an exception that destroys its deductive logic. Intelligent design claims that there must be some entity that created the universe. William Paley, one of its proponents, argued that a watch found in the middle of a heath reveals “that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose” unlike a mere rock, suggesting that there must be “an artificer who understood [the watch’s] mechanism and designed its use” (Paley 43). Employing teleological reasoning, Paley proposed a traditionally religious answer: There exists a God who intends a purpose for His creations. Darwin, like many scholars of his time, studied Paley’s Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, which contains the watchmaker analogy. As such, Darwin’s rejection of intelligent design theory epitomizes enlightenment thinking, as he bravely challenged a preconceived, long-held belief in Creationism. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species drew much outrage, especially because his evolutionary theory refuted Paley’s religiously 20

Makers of the Modern Mind founded claim that specialization of parts needs a Creator. Instead, Darwin claimed that the struggle for existence and variation leads to complexity, “which may be effected in the long course of time by nature’s power of selection” (Darwin 124). He anthropomorphized nature, not God, as the force (through the process of natural selection) that gives rise to the intricacies of a specialized existence. Paley and popular religious theory had long held authority as a deductively logical explanation, but Darwin identified a gap in Creationism. Consequently, Richard Dawkins calls Darwin’s natural selection the “blind, unconscious, automatic process” or the “blind watchmaker” (Dawkins 303). Dawkins underscores the imperfection of intelligent design, supporting Darwin’s new, alternative explanation that seems to promise greater validity.

However, Darwinian theory is not infallible and has been challenged by modern discoveries. While Darwin pointed to natural selection as the ‘blind’ watchmaker, he had also conceded that “any complex organ[...] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications” would destroy his theory (Behe 593). Indeed, Michael Behe presents the blood clotting cascade as “an irreducibly complex system” that is the exception to Darwin’s theory (Behe 593). Darwin claimed that natural selection works over a long period of time with slight modifications, but like the watch, the blood clotting cascade would be useless in a prior form. Behe asserts that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” and therefore, an extremely complex organ would break down with even the slightest modification (593). Behe, like Darwin did to Paley, provides the one exception that disqualifies his theory from being deductively logical. In addition, Phillip E. Johnson criticizes defenders of evolutionary theory who render the whole idea unfalsifiable. He argues that Darwinian supporters enter the conversation with ears closed, conceding that “any theory can be improved, and that our understanding of naturalistic evolution may one day be much greater than it is now” (Johnson 585). Johnson points out that at a certain point, evolutionary theorists also lose logical credibility by attempting to force new discoveries into the mold of evolutionary theory. For instance, Bill Nye quickly dismisses Ken Ham’s challenge that wood encased in rock were reported to be 1,000 years apart because of incorrect dating methods (“Bill Nye Debates” 1:30:50). Nye labels this instance an exception rather than attempting to reconcile the discrepancies between science and Darwin’s theory, effectively aiding Ham’s claim that evolutionary science is a belief and not knowledge (1:34:35). Just as Darwin rendered intelligent design a theory lacking deductive logic, contemporary critics do the same 21

to evolution.

Darwinian evolution ought to be taught as a likely theory rather than knowledge to preserve epistemological honesty. When defining key terms describing the nature of science, the National Academy of Sciences emphasizes that scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses” that is “the end point of science” (National 290). Thus, the organization effectively labels Darwinian evolution the pinnacle of scientific argument. However, such branding doesn’t allow for the fact that evolution is disputable and logically comparable to intelligent design. Within the paradigm of Darwinian evolution, it is difficult to recognize its flaws. Regardless, teaching Darwinian evolution as knowledge without evaluation of its validity is inconsistent with Darwin’s own brave venture into modern thought. Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity,” an often dangerous endeavor (Kant 1). By publishing On the Origin of Species, Darwin did just that. Despite his hedging and modest language, Darwin nevertheless presented a new and challenging idea, expecting and eliciting much anger from religious readers of his era. The many contemporary educational institutions that deprive students of the opportunity to do the same reveal their hypocrisy. Kant asserts that “the public use of one’s reason[...] alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind,” but schools imprison students within the bounds of popular belief, manipulating young minds into considering Darwinian evolution knowledge (2). In fact, it is one of many other possible explanations of the universe’s origin (i.e. intelligent design). Because each theory discredits the logic of the other, it is a matter of which is more likely true. Thus, schools have a responsibility to teach students how to critically evaluate Darwinian evolution, not that it is knowledge.

Darwinian evolution is foundational in contemporary science curricula, but schools must modify the method through which it is taught. While evolutionary theory identifies shortcomings in intelligent design, the converse is also true. Thus, neither qualifies as knowledge as justified truth. If schools teach evolution in the same way they do addition or multiplication, they not only deny the epistemological deficiency but also deprive students the opportunity to strive towards Kantian enlightenment. In a Darwinian paradigm, students will not challenge the popular theory if they believe it to be a justified truth. The age of modern thought can only continue through a change in teaching methods of evolution. Although Darwinian evolution is taught as science in schools, institutions seeking epistemological honesty ought to acknowledge the flaws in its deductive 22

logic, enabling students to critically evaluate the validity of each claim in true enlightenment fashion.

Works Cited

Behe, Michael. “Darwin’s Black Box.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 592-600. “Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official).” YouTube, uploaded by Answers in Genesis, 4 February 2014, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI. Darwin, Charles. “On the Origin of Species.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 95-174. Dawkins, Richard. “Explaining the Very Improbable.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 201-303. Johnson, Phillip E. “Darwin on Trial.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 581-585. Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” In-class handout. National Academy of Sciences. “Evolution and the Nature of Science.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 289-300. Paley, William. “Natural Theology.” Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 41-44. Steup, Matthias, “Epistemology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2018 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/win2018/entries/epistemology/.